People v. McBride

Decision Date19 December 2006
Docket NumberDocket No. 271579.
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Ann McBRIDE, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Eric J. Smith, Prosecuting Attorney, Robert Berlin, Chief Appellate Attorney, and Joshua D. Abbott, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Robert C. Buschmohle, Roseville, for the defendant.

Before: WHITBECK, C.J., and SAWYER and JANSEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The prosecution appeals, as on leave granted after remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, the trial court's order suppressing inculpatory statements made by defendant Mary Ann McBride during an interview with the police. We affirm.

I. Basic Facts And Procedural History

McBride was arrested and charged with open murder1 in the death of her boyfriend, Robert Adelsburg. Adelsburg died of multiple stab wounds on April 22, 2005, at the couple's shared residence in Roseville. Adelsburg was found in a pool of blood in the basement of the house. McBride was arrested at approximately 11:00 p.m. on April 22, 2005, and transported to the hospital for treatment of self-inflicted injuries from an unsuccessful suicide attempt. Sometime thereafter, McBride was taken to the Roseville Police Department.

After learning that McBride was deaf and mute, the officer in charge of the case, Detective Sergeant Jon Sarrach, called Sign Language Services of Michigan to inquire about an interpreter. Stacey Yourdan arrived at the police station to serve as the interpreter during the interview of McBride. According to Detective Michael Demick, neither he nor Detective Sarrach attempted to speak with McBride before the interpreter arrived. At approximately 6:30 a.m., Detective Sarrach retrieved McBride from her cell and placed her in the interrogation room. McBride was seated at a table, facing a video camera mounted above the door. Yourdan was seated across the table from McBride with her back to the camera. Because of the angle of the camera, the videotape of the interrogation does not show many of Yourdan's signs to McBride. Detectives Demick and Sarrach were seated opposite each other on the other two sides of the table.

Detective Demick testified that, during the interrogation and the reading of a constitutional rights form, Yourdan was signing to McBride and mouthing the words as she interpreted. According to Detective Demick, McBride looked at Detective Sarrach while he was speaking and then would look at Yourdan as she signed for her. Detective Demick stated that he watched both Detective Sarrach and McBride during these exchanges. Detective Demick testified that McBride would sometimes nod her head side-to-side or up and down during the interview to indicate a negative or affirmative response, respectively, to Detective Sarrach's questions. Often, Yourdan did not verbalize McBride's head movements.

Detective Sarrach started the interview by stating that everyone the police talk to are advised of "their rights" and then asking McBride if she had "ever heard of Miranda."[2] McBride shook her head side-to-side, and Yourdan interpreted this as a negative response. Detective Sarrach then inquired whether McBride watched television, to which McBride nodded her head up and down. Yourdan interpreted this as a "yes." Detective Sarrach then asked if McBride had ever seen a law program on television. McBride again shook her head side-to-side, which Yourdan interpreted as a negative response. Detective Sarrach stated, "I bet you as soon as I tell you about `em, you'll say `yeah, I know what they are.'"

Detective Sarrach then asked McBride if she could read and write. And, according to Detective Demick's testimony, McBride "said yes." However, the videotape shows that after Detective Sarrach asked McBride if she could read and write, McBride responded with a shrug of her shoulders, which Yourdan interpreted as an affirmative response. Detective Sarrach then stated, "I'm gonna give you a sheet of paper, and you can follow along with me, if you want." The paper to which Detective Sarrach referred was a constitutional rights form. Detective Sarrach placed the constitutional rights form on the table between himself and McBride, so that McBride was able to see it and presumably follow along as Detective Sarrach read each right. However, Detective Demick testified that McBride was unable to simultaneously read the form and follow Yourdan's signs as Detective Sarrach spoke.

At the top of the constitutional rights form is a stationery header for the City of Roseville Police Department. The document is then titled, followed by a list of five separate rights. At the bottom of the page there are signature lines for two witnesses and the advisee, as well as blank lines on which to indicate a date and time. Specifically, the form states as follows:

ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CERTIFICATE OF NOTIFICATION

You understand that:

1. You have a right to remain silent and that you do not have to answer any questions put to you or make any statements.

2. Any statement that you make or anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law.

3. You have the right to have an attorney (lawyer) present before and during the time you answer any questions or make any statements.

4. If you cannot afford an attorney (lawyer), one will be appointed for you without cost by the Court prior to any questioning.

5. You can decide at any time to exercise your rights and not answer any questions or make any statement.

I understand that these are my rights under the law.

Detective Demick testified that the purpose of the form was "[t]o make sure that we notify people who are under arrest who need to be told of their Miranda rights and to have them sign it to make sure that they acknowledge that they were informed of all of their rights."

Detective Sarrach began to read the constitutional rights form to McBride but combined the first part of the first right with the second part of the second right, stating specifically, "It says, `You have the right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.'" Notably, Detective Sarrach left off the second clause of the first right: "that you do not have to answer any questions put to you or make any statements." Detective Sarrach then asked McBride, "You understand that?" McBride nodded her head up and down, and Yourdan interpreted this as an affirmative response. However, using sign language for the first time during the interview, McBride immediately then inquired either, "no, wait, am I supposed to have a lawyer?" or "do I need a lawyer?" Detective Sarrach responded, "Well, you have a right to have one." McBride nodded her head up and down. But Yourdan did not verbalize this response. Detective Sarrach did not respond to McBride's head nod, and McBride did not ask any further questions or attempt to make any statements regarding an attorney.

Detective Sarrach then continued with the rights form and read verbatim the second right listed on the form. Detective Sarrach skipped the third right listed on the form regarding her right to the presence of an attorney. Detective Sarrach then read the first half of the fourth right listed on the form but failed to tell McBride that an attorney could be appointed for her "without cost by the Court prior to any questioning." Detective Sarrach asked again, "You understand that," and McBride responded with an up and down head movement. However, Yourdan did not verbalize this response. Detective Sarrach continued with the final right listed on the form but left off that McBride could, at any time, decide not to "answer any questions or make any statement."

After reading the constitutional rights form to McBride, Detective Sarrach again questioned McBride regarding whether she had heard the Miranda rights before. McBride shook her head side-to-side, and Yourdan interpreted this as a "no." Detective Sarrach then placed the form in front of McBride, stating, "I'm gonna ask you to sign that, showing that I read you this and gave you an opportunity...." McBride interrupted Detective Sarrach, inquiring about the time of day and commenting that she had not slept for long. Detective Sarrach then directed McBride "to sign right at that X," pointing to the form. McBride appeared to pause and read the form, and then she signed her name at the bottom. Detectives Sarrach and Demick signed on the witness lines. Yourdan was never given the opportunity before or during the interview to review the form or to interpret the omitted portions of each right that Detective Sarrach failed to read. Further, Detective Sarrach did not tell McBride that by signing the form she would be waiving her rights.

After asking some preliminary questions, Detective Sarrach asked McBride, "Do you know why you're here?" McBride nodded up and down, and Yourdan interpreted this as an affirmative response. Detective Sarrach then asked McBride if she wanted to tell him why she was there, and she shook her head side-to-side while shrinking away from the table. Yourdan did not verbalize this response. But Detective Sarrach immediately continued to question McBride, and during the interview that followed, McBride confessed to stabbing Adelsburg while he was sleeping.

McBride moved to suppress evidence of her statements to the police, arguing that she did not knowingly waive her rights and that, by ignoring her request for counsel before she gave her statement, the officers violated her constitutional right to counsel. During the Walker3 hearing that followed, Yvonne Jones testified on behalf of McBride regarding deaf culture and the interpreting process. According to Jones, who is certified as a National Association for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Henry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 8, 2014
    ...of his or her actions. See People v. Ryan, 295 Mich.App. 388, 397, 819 N.W.2d 55 (2012) ; see also People v. McBride, 273 Mich.App. 238, 254–255, 729 N.W.2d 551 (2006), rev'd in part on other grounds 480 Mich. 1047, 743 N.W.2d 884 (2008).D. THERE WAS NO “INTERROGATION” FOR PURPOSES OF MIRAN......
  • Rusnak v. Walker
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 19, 2006
    ... ... Betten Auto, supra at 24, 723 N.W.2d 914, citing People v. Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich. 278, 285, 597 N.W.2d 1 (1999) ...         Here we have a broad, clear assumption-of-risk provision that ... ...
  • United States v. Hamlett
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • September 29, 2020
    ...warnings to hearing-impaired defendant in "pidgin" sign language); People v. McBride, 743 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. 2008), rev'g, 729 N.W.2d 551 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (hearing-impaired defendant validly waived her Miranda rights by signing a written form, even though the ASL interpreter did not exp......
  • People v. Mullen
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 23, 2008
    ...be suppressed. III We review de novo a trial court's ultimate determination on a motion to suppress, People v. McBride (On Remand), 273 Mich.App. 238, 249, 729 N.W.2d 551 (2006), rev'd in part on other grounds 480 Mich. 1047, 743 N.W.2d 884 (2008), and its factual findings for clear error, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT